My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-12-81 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1981
>
10-12-81 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 8:42:52 PM
Creation date
10/1/2019 4:08:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
View images
View plain text
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, CCTOBER 12, 1981 <br />-7- <br />It. 20'd Fundin - <br />MU ttaker noted Lake Elmo's concern that Federal monies may be withheld or cancelled <br />construction grants for waste water treatment plants for 1982; and asked if <br />any additional information was available. He reviewed Lake Elmo's status on the <br />201 Study. <br />--Hughes - Unfortunate the Federal dollars will not be available and would be very <br />difficult for the State to make up the difference; but that does not mean the State <br />should not be concerned about Federal/State relations and let the people know at <br />the Federal level how critical it is. State should look at it, determine what: the <br />cost might be and possibly consider some State/Local commitment. <br />Levi - If Federal money dries up and the standards do not;simply to comply with <br />Federal law in some cases, the State will have to help. <br />5. Metro Watershed District - 1006 <br />Whittaker asked ivied ru,,user about her interest in having a District Watershed <br />District. <br />.-.Hawser - .indicated she had no comment or opinion, at this time. Is interested <br />in looking at it. Would like to see planning tied to what is happening in the <br />Watershed -Districts. <br />--Levi - Briefly reviewed her 7 County Metropolitan Area Storm Management Bill; and <br />expressed her position on protecting our water resources. <br />Discussion included jurisdiction responsibilities, water quantity and duality <br />preservation of wetlands, community responsibility, future planning vs immediate <br />problems. <br />6. Gun Club <br />Mottaz requested help from the legislators in drawing up guidelines and/or standards <br />in setting up, establishing, and controling gun clubs, rifle ranges, etc. He <br />believes there should be State wide control so all rules apply State wide <br />--Levi - Noted there was legislation in 1979 to do away with the authorization <br />given to -the PCA to enforce noise standards for the State. Much eontroversary, <br />bill passed unaminously, <br />--Mottaz - Not just noise - distance from residential areas, kinds of guns used, <br />necessary safety precautions, types of targets, lead deposits in a concentrated <br />area. Presently No guidelines to set standards. <br />--Hughes - .Agrees - should be looked at and ,get all expertise possible - check <br />other States for legislation. Should be parameters set up. <br />--Levi - in testimoney that was heard many did not want State regulations - <br />many communities want to set thbix own standards. Felt more restrictive standards <br />could be challenged if. the State standards were more lenient. <br />--Whittaker - Noted that the City was referred to the RU on questions concerning <br />problem areas with Lake Elmols Gun Club - they were of no help on the noise or <br />safety factors and did net want to assume responsibility for setting guidelines. <br />--Mottaz - Presently there is nothing for communities to base or draw up any <br />standards from. <br />--Levi - The base of the testimony was that the looations, terrain, and use of <br />gun clubs vary so much that local special use permits better lay out what is <br />acceptable. <br />7. MA Vaxiance and Plans <br />Mayor Eder explained Lake Elmo's request for a VISA variance, under the new procedure <br />authorized under a change in State Statute, that was denied. <br />--Whittaker - Issue is does the standard make any sense - He reviewed the process <br />taken by the City, following the procedure; and. noted the lack of communication <br />and information on the part of the State on applying for a variance or appealing <br />the denial. The operating procedure should include advising applicants that <br />if their application is denied they can apply for a variance and if the variance <br />is denied then advise them they have 30 days to file for a contested case hearing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).